🚀 go-pugleaf

Ilena Rose wrote:
>

To suggest that the effects of low-level radio-frequency radiation are 
identical to ionising radiation is laughable.  Microwaves do not disrupt 
DNA making people's hair fall out, destroying their the gut lining or 
making their skin fall off.  They do not destroy bone marrow and do not 
cure cancer as radiotherapy can do.

This quote has been taken out of context.  What I believe Dr Eckel meant 
(in reference 1) was that the long term effects on people who have 
suffered injury from (high levels of) non-ionising radiation are 
indistinguishable from those who have suffered injury from (low levels 
of) ionising radiation.  Not that *all* the effects are the same.

In the same interview also said "There is no alarming health risk" to 
the public from non-ionising radiation.
www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/news.php?id=eckel_cell

The citations recording DNA damage refer to the use of 2.45GHz radiation 
which is used by microwave ovens to cook food because it is a specific 
frequency absorbed by water, fats and sugars, and it is not used by any 
communication devices.  Yes of course that can cook DNA, it's mostly 
sugars.  Duh!  But it won't penetrate far into your body, for the same 
reason.

Most of us receive far more radio-frequency radiation from TV and radio 
transmissions than from cellphone masts.  I don't see you campaigning to 
have TV shut down.

I am happy to agree that spending hours sitting directly in the beam 
close to a radio transmitter is unhealthy, and sympathise with anyone 
who has been injured in this way.  However many studies so far have 
attempted and failed to show any statistically significant connection 
between cellphone masts and any disease.

Sure you can point to a few places where a high density of radiation and 
clusters of cancers etc, coincide, but you can also find many more where 
they don't.  This is to be expected from random chance and no-one has 
shown any statistical correlation.  The fact that the article quotes 
individual sites rather than any sort of large-area study tends to 
support the idea that the writer is well aware of this shortcoming.

Of course we should continue to observe, and we should be cautious about 
new technologies bringing increased exposure. But this article is 
scaremongering of the worst sort.


Tim Jackson